Champions League 2009 October 16, 2009

How to resolve a tie

 
17


Mike Hussey demonstrates a 98%-effort dive © Getty Images
 

So, the Sharks of Sussex are out of the world’s finest international-club-versus-franchise jamboree. Their elimination on Tuesday night raised many questions. What were they doing there? What time is the flight home? When will they get their money? Additionally, the manner of their exit led some to question the legitimacy of the super over as a method of settling a match. Surely, it was a violation of Rory Hamilton-Brown’s human rights for him to be embarrassed twice in the same match. Isn’t there a better way? Indeed there is. Here, for your thoughtful consideration are four proposals for ensuring a swift and compassionate end to proceedings on those occasions when the participants have been too inept to sort it out for themselves.

The Coin Toss Before we consider the ridiculous, let us contemplate the sublime. The coin is, in fact, an elegant and unimpeachable arbiter and many of us have made some of our most important life decisions after flinging a bit of currency into the air. Indeed, I know of one particular High Court judge who would simply be unable to dispense justice as efficiently as he does without recourse to the coin toss. If it is good enough to decide upon prison sentences, marriage proposals, job offers and where to go for lunch, it ought to be good enough to settle the outcome of a Twenty20 game.

The Percentometer Cricketers love statistics but are notoriously unreliable. When Ravi Bopara says he gave it 110%, how can we be sure that this is an accurate estimate? For all we know, he might only have given it 106% or 99%. Fortunately, scientists at the Adelaide Institute of Silly Studies have developed the Percentometer, a device that can measure how hard a team have tried in percentage terms by correlating sweat volumes, profanity output and steely glares. In the event of a tie, the team with the highest Percentometer readings will win the game.

The Bank-Off These days, business goes with cricket like parasitic green algae with an ornamental pond. So why not bring some of the features of the corporate world into our great sport? In the event of a stalemate, accountants dressed in team colours will make their way to the middle of the pitch, and at specially built desks will proceed to audit the opposition team’s accounts. The franchise with the fewest accounting errors will be declared the winner. The only disadvantage with this suggestion is that it could take several hours, but this will allow plenty of time for television commercials.

The Dance-Off For reasons that are not immediately apparent, watching people dance badly on television has become very popular in certain parts of the world. What better way to cash in on this trend than by introducing a ballroom-dance competition to settle tied cricket matches? Each team will choose one pair of players to dress up in spangly suits and silly grins and perform in front of a celebrity panel of dance-floor dynamos, including Ravi “Rumba” Shastri and Sunny “Samba” Gavaskar. Watch out for Kolkata’s fabulous couple of captivating captains, Sourav Ganguly and Brendon McCullum. Their foxtrot is something to behold.

Andrew Hughes is a writer currently based in England

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Oh Canada! on October 31, 2009, 19:16 GMT

    Great ideas, but unfortunately the study you quote from the Adelaide Institute was trumped by a recent study by the Toronto School of Nonsensical Education which claims that the A.I.'s study did not account for levels of whinging and toy-throwing-from-pramming.

  • rainmaker on October 19, 2009, 4:23 GMT

    Do you actually get paid to write this?

  • Dubby on October 19, 2009, 3:59 GMT

    Well said essexboy. Fab idea

  • Steve on October 17, 2009, 16:55 GMT

    Whats wrong with the bowlout? It's fun to watch, and exposes the inability of bowlers to hit unprotected wickets. Who can forget Afridi bowling two wides in the bowlout!

  • Peter on October 17, 2009, 11:16 GMT

    Loved the humour in this piece. Very funny.

    However, on a more serious note, I do believe the super-over is superior to tie-breakers in other sports.

    Football and hockey for example has penalty shootouts which I believe has more luck elements in them.

    With super over at least you get the 3 things that makes cricket cricket - batting, bowling and fielding.

    If in a tie, team progression is based on factors like NRR or ranking in the group stage, I would find the whole match anticlimactic without a winner.

    My thoughts now on the tie in the semis of 1999WC....... and what happens if still tied after super-over, another super-over?

  • Ben Smith on October 17, 2009, 7:13 GMT

    To be honest, what's wrong with a good old tie? If, in the case of a tournament, you need to have one team progress to the next stage, go on net run rate. So the game itself should be called a tie but one team will go through on a better net run rate. If a final is tied- why can't the teams share the trophy.

    I'm not a Sussex Fan, I was cheering for the Eagles all the way in that pool, but the Super Over Eliminator is too much of a lottery and doesn't reflect true cricket skills.

  • JoeS on October 16, 2009, 23:25 GMT

    You people are idiots. Half of the people posting here apparently thought that this item was meant to be genuine.

    Those people should promptly (without delay), give themselves an upper cut.

  • Jacob on October 16, 2009, 20:03 GMT

    Rao and Surya, You guys need a lesson on how to detect a non serious article when you see one. Grow a beard and hit the road guys.

  • Ahsan on October 16, 2009, 18:32 GMT

    on the funny perspective, basically on the basis of which this article was written, fabulous read. On some serious note though, SuperOvers are junks. whoever came up with this idea should be shot twice!!

  • Sharky on October 16, 2009, 14:29 GMT

    I love the humour, but mostly only the Sussex fans feel now that the super-over are a bit unfair. The super-over has been used before the Eagles/Sussex game and before all this complains started to roll in. I think the super-over fits 20/20 cricket perfectly. Lots of excitement and the chance is good you'll see a few wickets or boundaries during a super-over. Seeing a bowler takes two wickets with two balls, while the two batsman wants to hit the ball out of the park, is sensational. It's fast and furious cricket. And with a bit of luck like 20/20 cricket. "I don,t like cricket, I love it." To see extra six balls of fun cricket is better than anything else. Especially a boring coin toss. Keep that idea for the Sussex fans.

  • Oh Canada! on October 31, 2009, 19:16 GMT

    Great ideas, but unfortunately the study you quote from the Adelaide Institute was trumped by a recent study by the Toronto School of Nonsensical Education which claims that the A.I.'s study did not account for levels of whinging and toy-throwing-from-pramming.

  • rainmaker on October 19, 2009, 4:23 GMT

    Do you actually get paid to write this?

  • Dubby on October 19, 2009, 3:59 GMT

    Well said essexboy. Fab idea

  • Steve on October 17, 2009, 16:55 GMT

    Whats wrong with the bowlout? It's fun to watch, and exposes the inability of bowlers to hit unprotected wickets. Who can forget Afridi bowling two wides in the bowlout!

  • Peter on October 17, 2009, 11:16 GMT

    Loved the humour in this piece. Very funny.

    However, on a more serious note, I do believe the super-over is superior to tie-breakers in other sports.

    Football and hockey for example has penalty shootouts which I believe has more luck elements in them.

    With super over at least you get the 3 things that makes cricket cricket - batting, bowling and fielding.

    If in a tie, team progression is based on factors like NRR or ranking in the group stage, I would find the whole match anticlimactic without a winner.

    My thoughts now on the tie in the semis of 1999WC....... and what happens if still tied after super-over, another super-over?

  • Ben Smith on October 17, 2009, 7:13 GMT

    To be honest, what's wrong with a good old tie? If, in the case of a tournament, you need to have one team progress to the next stage, go on net run rate. So the game itself should be called a tie but one team will go through on a better net run rate. If a final is tied- why can't the teams share the trophy.

    I'm not a Sussex Fan, I was cheering for the Eagles all the way in that pool, but the Super Over Eliminator is too much of a lottery and doesn't reflect true cricket skills.

  • JoeS on October 16, 2009, 23:25 GMT

    You people are idiots. Half of the people posting here apparently thought that this item was meant to be genuine.

    Those people should promptly (without delay), give themselves an upper cut.

  • Jacob on October 16, 2009, 20:03 GMT

    Rao and Surya, You guys need a lesson on how to detect a non serious article when you see one. Grow a beard and hit the road guys.

  • Ahsan on October 16, 2009, 18:32 GMT

    on the funny perspective, basically on the basis of which this article was written, fabulous read. On some serious note though, SuperOvers are junks. whoever came up with this idea should be shot twice!!

  • Sharky on October 16, 2009, 14:29 GMT

    I love the humour, but mostly only the Sussex fans feel now that the super-over are a bit unfair. The super-over has been used before the Eagles/Sussex game and before all this complains started to roll in. I think the super-over fits 20/20 cricket perfectly. Lots of excitement and the chance is good you'll see a few wickets or boundaries during a super-over. Seeing a bowler takes two wickets with two balls, while the two batsman wants to hit the ball out of the park, is sensational. It's fast and furious cricket. And with a bit of luck like 20/20 cricket. "I don,t like cricket, I love it." To see extra six balls of fun cricket is better than anything else. Especially a boring coin toss. Keep that idea for the Sussex fans.

  • surya on October 16, 2009, 14:21 GMT

    cricinfo has been responsible for many great ideas through the blogs. But unfortunately this is not one among this. This blog is neither fun or informative , its just irritating.

  • Sai on October 16, 2009, 12:52 GMT

    Come on! The westindies cricket has scene enough drama already and I don't think they can afford the dance classes. As for the coin winners should be decided on the basis of skill not luck. The super over gives equal advantage to both sides. The team that has just finished bowlinng will know the latest condions and line/length to bowl, and the team that just batted will know the same as well. If u look back at the match Sussex made 3 errors in 2 overs the first being handing the ball to the worst bowler of the day(yasir arafat had an economy of over 9) and two of their best batsmen going for wild slogs instead of holding their nerve.

  • Rao on October 16, 2009, 12:13 GMT

    when i first read the headline of this topic- "How to resolve a tie", I was compelled to believe that it was going to be an exciting read. But unfortunately,it wasn't even worth half the excitement it created in me. Apart from the "the coin toss" proposal, everything else were impractical suggestions. I don't know how cricinfo even approved this junk. The protagonist here-the author Andrew Hughes- has proven that ICC's decision on the super over, however mediocre it may be, cannot be bettered. After all, who would consider a product from Adelaide Institute of "SILLY" Studies apllicable? I would'nt for sure!

  • essexboy on October 16, 2009, 12:10 GMT

    Seeing as the format of cricket games are getting ever shorter, maybe we could just go straight to a one over super eliminator and wrap the up the whole tournament before lunch.

  • Sayan on October 16, 2009, 10:56 GMT

    I suggest some other fab pairs for the couple dance:

    1. Harbhajan and Sreesanth 2. Arun Lal and Rameez Raja 3. Danny Morrison and Sivaramakrishnan 4. Brett Lee and Ricky Ponting 5. Tatenda Taibu and Jacob Oram (the shortest and tallest players in the world) etc etc

  • Rukshan on October 16, 2009, 10:55 GMT

    Absolutely hilarious....Don't forget Ramps, Gough and Sri Lanka's very own Akalanka Ganegama...all of whom can join Shastri and Co.

  • kalessin on October 16, 2009, 10:55 GMT

    How did we miss "The Write-Off"? -- A simple test of natural sledging ability, loosely based on the events and personalities having featured in the match. The team that is made to seem the most patently incapable of having won the game shall be declared the loser, and the winners shall be called upon for "The Send-Off," a moment of reflection upon the essential justice of this outcome, as the losers leave the field.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • kalessin on October 16, 2009, 10:55 GMT

    How did we miss "The Write-Off"? -- A simple test of natural sledging ability, loosely based on the events and personalities having featured in the match. The team that is made to seem the most patently incapable of having won the game shall be declared the loser, and the winners shall be called upon for "The Send-Off," a moment of reflection upon the essential justice of this outcome, as the losers leave the field.

  • Rukshan on October 16, 2009, 10:55 GMT

    Absolutely hilarious....Don't forget Ramps, Gough and Sri Lanka's very own Akalanka Ganegama...all of whom can join Shastri and Co.

  • Sayan on October 16, 2009, 10:56 GMT

    I suggest some other fab pairs for the couple dance:

    1. Harbhajan and Sreesanth 2. Arun Lal and Rameez Raja 3. Danny Morrison and Sivaramakrishnan 4. Brett Lee and Ricky Ponting 5. Tatenda Taibu and Jacob Oram (the shortest and tallest players in the world) etc etc

  • essexboy on October 16, 2009, 12:10 GMT

    Seeing as the format of cricket games are getting ever shorter, maybe we could just go straight to a one over super eliminator and wrap the up the whole tournament before lunch.

  • Rao on October 16, 2009, 12:13 GMT

    when i first read the headline of this topic- "How to resolve a tie", I was compelled to believe that it was going to be an exciting read. But unfortunately,it wasn't even worth half the excitement it created in me. Apart from the "the coin toss" proposal, everything else were impractical suggestions. I don't know how cricinfo even approved this junk. The protagonist here-the author Andrew Hughes- has proven that ICC's decision on the super over, however mediocre it may be, cannot be bettered. After all, who would consider a product from Adelaide Institute of "SILLY" Studies apllicable? I would'nt for sure!

  • Sai on October 16, 2009, 12:52 GMT

    Come on! The westindies cricket has scene enough drama already and I don't think they can afford the dance classes. As for the coin winners should be decided on the basis of skill not luck. The super over gives equal advantage to both sides. The team that has just finished bowlinng will know the latest condions and line/length to bowl, and the team that just batted will know the same as well. If u look back at the match Sussex made 3 errors in 2 overs the first being handing the ball to the worst bowler of the day(yasir arafat had an economy of over 9) and two of their best batsmen going for wild slogs instead of holding their nerve.

  • surya on October 16, 2009, 14:21 GMT

    cricinfo has been responsible for many great ideas through the blogs. But unfortunately this is not one among this. This blog is neither fun or informative , its just irritating.

  • Sharky on October 16, 2009, 14:29 GMT

    I love the humour, but mostly only the Sussex fans feel now that the super-over are a bit unfair. The super-over has been used before the Eagles/Sussex game and before all this complains started to roll in. I think the super-over fits 20/20 cricket perfectly. Lots of excitement and the chance is good you'll see a few wickets or boundaries during a super-over. Seeing a bowler takes two wickets with two balls, while the two batsman wants to hit the ball out of the park, is sensational. It's fast and furious cricket. And with a bit of luck like 20/20 cricket. "I don,t like cricket, I love it." To see extra six balls of fun cricket is better than anything else. Especially a boring coin toss. Keep that idea for the Sussex fans.

  • Ahsan on October 16, 2009, 18:32 GMT

    on the funny perspective, basically on the basis of which this article was written, fabulous read. On some serious note though, SuperOvers are junks. whoever came up with this idea should be shot twice!!

  • Jacob on October 16, 2009, 20:03 GMT

    Rao and Surya, You guys need a lesson on how to detect a non serious article when you see one. Grow a beard and hit the road guys.